Who Is Going to Stop Them? by Naomi Kleinwww.dissidentvoice.org
March 27, 2004First Published in No Logo

In
London, they unfurled a protest sign on Big Ben, in Rome a million
demonstrators filled the streets. But here in Iraq, there were no such
spectacular markings of the one year anniversary of the invasion a sign, the
BBC speculated, that Iraqis are generally “pleased” with the progress of
their liberation.

Yet driving around Baghdad
on March 20, the eerie quiet felt like a sign of something else: that
symbolic anniversaries are an unaffordable luxury when the war they are
supposed to be marking is still being waged. Several demonstrations were
planned for the 20th in Baghdad but were cancelled at the last minute a
response to three days of rapid fire attacks on Iraqi and foreign civilians.

On March 19, an
anti-occupation march designed as a show of unity between Sunni and Shia
Muslims was much smaller than organizers hoped, and no wonder: less than
three weeks ago, 70 people were killed in a horrific attack on the same Shia
mosque where demonstrators were meant to gather. To underscore the threat,
U.S. occupation chief Paul Bremer chose the day of the planned protests to
predict that more such “major attacks” were likely “when you have masses of
Shia together.” Those who dared to show up despite the warnings glanced
around nervously, while men armed with Kalashnikovs lined the streets and
rooftops, looking for signs of trouble.

It’s worth remembering that
just two months ago, the mood here was distinctly less tentative. In
January, more than 100,000 Iraqis took to the streets of Baghdad and Basra
to reject the U.S. plan to appoint an interim government through a
complicated system of regional caucuses, and to demand direct elections
instead. Under intense pressure, Bremer was forced to scrap the caucus plan
entirely. For a brief moment, it looked as if Bush’s empty talk of bringing
democracy to Iraq might just become a reality not because the occupiers were
serious about giving Iraqis self-determination, but because Iraqis seemed
determined to seize that power despite their occupiers’ best efforts.

Now, after a month of
terror and steady assertions from “experts” that Iraq is on the verge of
civil war, much of that boldness has retreated. Which is precisely why they
call it terrorism: it sends people from the streets into their homes,
replacing courage with fear, self-reliance with dependency. There are rare
exceptions, such as the recent Spanish elections, when populations seem to
collectively decide to try something else — to respond to horror with
defiance. But more often than not, terror simply terrorizes.

But if terror sows fear, an
obvious point, the obvious question is: who benefits most from the spreading
fear in Iraq? According to U.S. President George W. Bush, the winners are
faceless evildoers bent on undermining Iraq’s future democracy. “They
understand that a free Iraq will be a devastating setback to their ambitions
of tyranny over the Middle East,” he explained on the anniversary. And
according to Bremer, that means that the attacks will likely continue as the
June 30 handover approaches.

It’s a nice theory, but
it’s not the one gaining currency on the streets of Baghdad. Just twenty
minutes after the devastating bombing of the Mount Lebanon hotel last
Wednesday, the rumours began to fly: it was the Americans, the Pentagon, the
CIA, the British… If these conspiracy theories have traction, maybe it's
because the occupying forces have so brazenly taken advantage of the attacks
to do precisely what they accuse foreign terrorist of doing: interfere with
the prospect of genuine democracy in Iraq.

When it was only occupation
targets getting hit by the resistance soldiers, contractors, police it made
the occupation seem inept and out of control, bolstering the argument that
the U.S. should pull out and hand over power to Iraqis or a more neutral
international force. But now that the targets have clearly expanded to
include Iraqi civilians, as well as foreign aid workers and journalists, the
White House is attempting to make the Iraqis themselves seem out of control,
riven with religious and ethnic hatreds, incapable of governing themselves
without U.S. involvement.

With doubt successfully
cast on the prospects for Iraqi democracy, and terror attacks ensuring that
there are far fewer Iraqis in the streets demanding their democratic rights,
Bremer is on the verge of accomplishing what seemed impossible just two
months ago: installing an interim Iraqi government that is fully controlled
by the U.S.

It now looks almost certain
that Iraq’s first “sovereign” government will be created by a process even
less democratic than the abandoned caucus system: the U.S.-appointed Iraqi
Governing Council will simply be expanded in size. This body is so
discredited here that it is called the “governed council,” but widespread
objections have so far been drowned out by the nightly attacks.

Bremer has also managed to
use the terror attacks to make sure that Iraq’s next government will be able
to do nothing but implement his orders. Earlier this month, his plan to push
through an interim constitution seemed doomed, with several members of the
Governing Council refusing to sign the contentious document. But after the
devastating attacks on Shia religious sites on March 2, Iraqi leaders came
under pressure to sign the document as a show of national unity and
stability.

The interim constitution,
signed two weeks ago, states that, “The laws, regulations, orders, and
directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority… shall remain in
force.” These laws include Bremer’s Order 39, which drastically changes
Iraq’s previous constitution to allow foreign companies to own 100 per cent
of Iraqi assets (except in natural resources), and to take 100 per cent of
their profits out of the country, paving the way for massive privatizations.

But defying Bremer’s orders
won’t be an option after the “handover”: the interim constitution clearly
states that the only way these laws can be changed is by a three-fourths
vote “by the Iraqi Transitional Government.” According to the same
constitution, that body won’t exist until elections are held in early 2005.

In other words, on June 30,
the occupation won’t end, it will simply be outsourced to a group of hand
picked Iraqi politicians with no democratic mandate or sovereign power. With
its new Iraqi face, the government will be free from the ugly perception
that Iraq’s national assets are being auctioned off by foreigners — not to
mention being unencumbered by input from Iraqi voters who might have ideas
of their own. At the Economic Forum on Iraq conference held in Beirut last
week, Nassir al-Jadarji, a member of the Governing Council, assured
potential investors that the deals made by these mandate-less politicians
will be passed on to Iraq’s future elected leaders. “Our policies toward
investments will not change in any form and we assure the complete honoring
of signed contracts,” he said. Some wonder why any company would even want
to buy up pieces of a country as chaotic and dangerous as Iraq. Perhaps the
real question should be: with the Iraqi people living amidst so much chaos
and danger, who is going to stop them?